----- Original Message ----
> From: Santiago Gala <santiago.g...@gmail.com>
> To: community@apache.org
> Sent: Wed, September 15, 2010 11:50:34 AM
> Subject: Re: "Forking is a Feature" reactions?
>
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> (...)
> > It does give me pause because I believe there's an important role for a
> > set of central services for projects (and for societies in general). As
> > far as Apache goes, it's a virtual organization whose roots lie in the
> > stuff we have stored in various datacenters. Nevertheless there is a
> > palpable sense of what it means to "do work at Apache", and part of that
> > illusion is provided by our centralization. I do wonder how we'd manage
> > to maintain that illusion if we completely decentralized our core
workflows.
> >
>
> It is amazing how you (and I mean a big y'all of people negating
> distributed SCM along those last 5 years or so) can keep the illusion
> that a technical solution (called "centralization" here) can keep an
> organization together more than a set of core values can.
It comes from experience with dealing with younger projects in the
Incubator that are not so enthralled with svn's workflows, and the
social problems that seem to result from those attitudes. Eric is
a relatively new committer at Apache and he still talks about his
role as being like a "gatekeeper". That's not something he picked
up from us.
>
> While I agree that changing tools, like changing stylesheets or
> electing a new board, changes an organization, I don't believe at all
> in "subversion" or even in "centralized SCM" as a shared ASF value.
Good because although some people may think that, I'm not one of them.
The tool we use is serving the org well and that is my overriding
concern. The jury's still out on whether migrating wholesale to git
instead of just providing git mirrors is actually in the org's best
interests.
> The license, the belief in collective decision making, our history,
> etc. are central. Not the technology we use for SCM. We already
> changed from cvs to svn and our world stayed reasonably similar.
Well svn was billed as a better version of cvs. It's not like the
workflow changed much between them.
> I see the "dscm is an unsuitable workflow for collaborative
> development" meme as this: a meme.
>
> You can think of git as just a local backup for your changes and a
> tool for patch handing like quilt blended together. This is often how
> I think about it when I'm using "git svn" for legacy subversion sites
> like the ASF. If you add github for a public remote backup this would
> be similar to having a quilt setup exported as a public share in one
> of those cloud backups... only with standardized and very efficient
> transfers
AIUI github already carries our mirrors, so we're already *doing* that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscr...@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-h...@apache.org
